rhoegg 2003/02/03 19:47:42
Modified:src/java/org/apache/xmlrpc Tag: XMLRPC_1_2_BRANCH
Base64.java
Log:
Latest version of Base64 from Martin Redington:
- appends CRLF to the output of encode to mimic perl behavior
- discards non base 64 characters
- 2x p
rhoegg 2003/02/03 19:43:23
Modified:src/java/org/apache/xmlrpc Base64.java
Log:
Latest version of Base64 from Martin Redington:
- appends CRLF to the output of encode to mimic perl behavior
- discards non base 64 characters
- 2x performance improvement in decode
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Ryan Hoegg wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am getting close to a presentable version of my Commons HttpClient
> transport. It is time to start planning the changes to build.xml.
>
> My local copy just has the new dependency
> (commons-httpclient-2.0-alpha2.jar) loading from my buil
rhoegg 2003/02/03 18:48:28
Modified:src/java/org/apache/xmlrpc Tag: XMLRPC_1_2_BRANCH
Base64.java
Log:
Cleaned up indentation by replacing tabs with spaces
Revision ChangesPath
No revision
No revision
Hi all,
I am getting close to a presentable version of my Commons HttpClient
transport. It is time to start planning the changes to build.xml.
My local copy just has the new dependency
(commons-httpclient-2.0-alpha2.jar) loading from my build.properties
similarly to how jsse.jar and friends a
Actually from the thread in eyebrowse it looks like they are taking your
version of the class from CVS or maybe from Bugzilla. Tim definitely
seems to think our Base64 is the one to use from the lot.
Martin Redington wrote:
Hi Ryan,
I would get my additional changes in (or at least bring t
Hi Ryan,
I would get my additional changes in (or at least bring them to
Tim's attention), as they are a definite step forward, in terms of both
RFC compliance and efficiency (Danny's comment about trailing CR/LF's
not withstanding) ...
On Monday, February 3, 2003, at 10:33 PM, Ryan Hoe
Daniel Rall wrote:
I realize that you just backported from HEAD, but it seems that the
indentation of this file is seriously screwed up (likely caused by tab
characters). This makes the diffs much more difficult to read. At the very
least, HEAD should have the correct indentation.
You're
I think I'm going to back off any further changes as it looks like this
has turned into an Apache-wide thing now:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=23792
Tim O'Brien says there are 35 (!) active classes throughout Apache using
this code. After the dust settles
I realize that you just backported from HEAD, but it seems that the
indentation of this file is seriously screwed up (likely caused by tab
characters). This makes the diffs much more difficult to read. At the very
least, HEAD should have the correct indentation.
On 1 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED
> a final newline to encoded data (which seems to be RFC compliant, as
> lines are supposed to be folded as "at most" 76 characters, and this is
> also how the Perl base64 behaves).
Yup, Base64 is a mail transport encoding defined in
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1521.txt for transport of MIME dat
On Monday, February 3, 2003, at 08:37 PM, Ryan Hoegg wrote:
I've seen these fly by as you have been updating the Bug. I imagine
most of these are Good Things, but I think the Codec people will have
concerns about silently ignoring things the RFC encourages us to
complain about. You think we
I've seen these fly by as you have been updating the Bug. I imagine
most of these are Good Things, but I think the Codec people will have
concerns about silently ignoring things the RFC encourages us to
complain about. You think we should raise some sort of exception?
--
Ryan Hoegg
ISIS Netwo
On Monday, February 3, 2003, at 07:52 PM, Ryan Hoegg wrote:
Looks like the appropriate people have been made aware.
Thanks for checking that one out, Martin!
np, but you might want to check out my most recent patches on bug 9931.
These added:
a final newline to encoded data (which seems to
Looks like the appropriate people have been made aware.
Thanks for checking that one out, Martin!
--
Ryan Hoegg
ISIS Networks'http://www.isisnetworks.net
--- Begin Message ---
I saw that bug report and made Tim aware that xml-rpc also had an
implementation. They all appear to be based on the s
Hi Jandalf,
I am not currently subscribed to Commons Dev, although I imagine I need
to resubscribe sometime soon.
Martin Redington just checked HttpClient's version of Base64.java, and
it still has the problems in Bug 9931. We have also made some
performance improvements as you will see in th
I just had a look at the HttpClient version. I can't see much
difference from the "base" Base64 code (the one that subsequently got
copied into various jakarta projects), apart from some reformatting.
The httpclient version still has the whitespace and non-Base64
character issues ...
On M
Just noticed this on the HttpClient mailing list. Looks like things are
happening with Base64. We should make sure our interests are
represented as well. I know very little about the "new" version of
Base64 in the HttpClient package, but we should at least make sure that
our problems do not
18 matches
Mail list logo
